Computer Support for School Based Curriculum Development

Computer Support for School Based Curriculum Development

Computer Support for School Based Curriculum Development Yih-Ruey Juang Graduate Institute of Computer Science and Information Engineering National Central University, Taiwan [email protected] Tzu-Chien Liu Graduate Institute of Learning and Instruction National Central University, Taiwan [email protected] Tak-Wai Chan Graduate Institute of Network Learning Technology National Central University, Taiwan [email protected]

Abstract: The school based curriculum development is a decentralized strategy of curriculum development, which is also an important and ongoing issue in the trend of educational reform, especially in Asia. Although schools are granted the power of decision-making on curriculum development, a lot of difficulties encountered need to be overcome such as manpower management, curriculum development strategy, resources allocation, curriculum evaluation, and so on. One of the professional and technical problems is how the curriculum development can be addressed to fulfil six criteria, the continuity, logicality, adaptability, integrity, diversity, and flexibility for effective instruction. What role can computer play in curriculum development? This paper presented a practical curriculum development procedure, V-map, and implemented a web-based system with design, management, communication, and evaluation tools to support the work of curriculum development. Keywords: School Based Curriculum, Curriculum Development, Instructional Design, and Computer Support for Curriculum Development.

Introduction School based curriculum development (SBCD) is a decentralized strategy of curriculum development which is also an important and ongoing issue in the trend of educational reform. Around 1970, some researchers proposed the concepts and strategies of SBCD to improve the curriculum development model at the time (Brady, 1995; Kennedy, 1992; Knight, 1985; McMullen, 1973; Morris, 1990; OECD, 1979; Skilbeck, 1976, 1984; Marsh, 1990). Although different definitions of SBCD had been addressed, the assumption of SBCD is correspondent to teacher professional autonomy about curriculum decision-making such as design, implementation, and evaluation. Although this trend has been reversed in many countries, such as United Kingdom, but it is still influencing many counties in Asia such as Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan (Lo, 1999), since the curriculum development of these countries is highly centralized before 90s. However, while schools were engaged in works of SBCD, many difficulties and problems were encountered which are summarized as followings: 1. Heavy burden to teachers – Teachers were busy with their works of teaching, daily duty, students counselling, and accident handling. Now, they are even busier to design instructions for SBCD

609

International Conference on Computers in Education 2004 and cannot sustain this burden. Besides, curriculum development is a complex and professional work such that teachers might do it well with twice the effort if no appropriate assistance. 2. Difficult design of curriculum articulation – The decision-making of curriculum design and implementation is generally the tacit knowledge hidden in teachers’ mind. If teachers lack a communication channel or integration mechanism to externalize diverse innovative instructional designs, the curriculum articulation and logicality will be very weak or even failed. The abilities cultivation of students also cannot work on step-by-step schedule and cannot meet the needs of students. 3. Difficult design of curriculum integration – Curriculum in the same grade generally needs to be integrated to design a theme based instruction which comprises diverse subject knowledge. If teachers who are teaching in the same grade lack a communication channel to design curriculum collaboratively, the ideal of curriculum integration cannot be realized. 4. Difficult curriculum management – One of the important arguments of SBCD is the decentralization the curriculum decision-making. Teachers have the autonomy to design lesson plans for their own classes. However, a school still needs to supervise, control, and manage the vertical articulation and horizontal integration of whole school curriculum. If schools lack a management or supervision system, a great quantity of curriculum documents would make schools cannot keep track of the development state and plan the future curriculum effectively. In recent years, many researchers employed computer to support instructional design and curriculum development. Some researchers developed instructional design supporting systems, such as CASCADE serials, for developers on designing curriculum of different levels. Some systems support for classroom level, such as CASCADE-SEA, CASCADE-MUCH, and CASCADE-IMEI, and some systems support for school level, such as CASCADE-SEA (McKenney, 2001). However, SBCD should involve at least three levels, class, grade, and school, and cannot be considered and operated just on one level. This study present a curriculum development flow, V-map, for collaborative mechanism across class, grade, and school levels. A web-based supporting system was also constructed based on V-map flow to assist teachers or curriculum developers work well and efficient on SBCD. Finally, the system was applied in an elementary school to develop SBCD. The results will be evaluated and discussed in last section.

Criteria for Curriculum Organization One important issue of curriculum development is curriculum organization besides the goal setting and curriculum selection. The issue involves how lessons or learning topics of each subject can be organized to form some kind of coherent program. Tyler (1949) dealt with three criteria for curriculum organization, the continuity, sequence, and integration. Oliver (1977) also dealt with three criteria, the articulation, balance, and continuity (ABC). Ornstein & Hunkins (1988) noticed six criteria, the scope, integration, sequence, continuity, articulation, and balance. Huang (1999) presented two ways of curriculum evaluation, the vertical and horizontal organization. Vertical organization indicates the learning sequence of curriculum. The horizontal organization indicates the integration of curriculum including the knowledge, students’ experience, and social environment. Besides, SBCD also puts the emphasis on autonomous decision-making of curriculum, thus the flexibility of curriculum adjustment and diversity of curriculum design for different learning needs of students are also need to be involved. By analysing and summarizing the above literatures, a complete SBCD should fit in with the following six criteria: • Continuity – curriculum should be coherent with cognitive development of learners from easy to difficult and simple to complex. • Logicality – the relationship between learning topics should be coherent with knowledge structure of subject. • Adaptability – learning content and activities should be coherent with the learning needs of students and school setting.

610

Computer Support for School Based Curriculum Development • • •

Integrity – knowledge integration among all subjects. Diversity – the design of instructional activities should be diversified for different needs of students to broaden different dimensions of learning. Flexibility – the syllabus and lesson plans can be justified flexibly according to the needs of real educational situation.

Levels and Works of School Based Curriculum Development Daniel Tanner & Laurel Tanner (1995) offered three levels of curriculum development for considering the role teachers can play. The level 1 is imitative-maintenance level which main tasks are concerned with maintenance of established practice, adoption of packed curriculum. Level 2 is mediative level which main tasks are concerned with interpretive, adaptive curriculum, and refinement of established practice. Level 3 is generative-creative level which main tasks are concerned with interpretive, adaptive, evaluative curriculum, improvement of established practice, and search for improved practice. McKenney, et al. (2002) also presented three levels for curriculum development, macro, meso, and micro. The macro level is equivalent to educational system of whole district or country, meso level is equivalent to institution or school, and micro level is equivalent to classroom level. However, from the perspective of SBCD, the scale of this taxonomy seems too large for adoption. In Taiwan, a teacher who participates in SBCD plays as different main actor and is given with different tasks. There are also three levels but different from the above taxonomy, which are the school level, grade level, and class level. In school level, each school must found the Committee of School Curriculum Development (CSCD) which is formed by school principle, executive directors, delegates of each grade and subject, parents, students, and delegates of communities. The committee analyses and designs the vision of school and curriculum objectives according to the local setting, characteristics of students, professional of teachers, social and economic background of parents, and so on. The main task in this level is the design of the overall curriculum and a coherent and complete subject knowledge structure. Thus, the organizational criteria of curriculum should be considered in this level are the continuity, logicality, and adaptability. In grade level, each grade founds the Grade Committee of Curriculum Development (GCCD) which is formed by master teachers and teachers of specialist. The main tasks in this level are given the regular discussion for coordinating the selection of instructional materials, integration of curriculum, and time allocation. Thus, the organizational criteria of curriculum should be considered in this level is the integration. In class level, there is no special organization for curriculum development. The individual teachers can design the diversified lesson plans and related materials, the main tasks, independently or cooperate with other teachers to do the tasks. Thus, the organizational criteria of curriculum should be considered in this level is the diversity. In short, this study layered the participants into three levels, class, grade, and school. The main actor, criteria, and tasks of each level are showed in Table 1.

611

International Conference on Computers in Education 2004 Table 1. Three levels of School Based Curriculum Development

Level

Main actor

Criteria

Tasks

School Members of Committee of School Curriculum Development (CSCD)

Continuity,  Vision-making & goal setting logicality,  Design of the overall curriculum adaptability,  Design of a coherent and complete subject and knowledge structure flexibility

Grade

Members of Grade Committee of Curriculum Development (GCCD)

Integrity and flexibility

 Selection of instructional materials  Integration of curriculum  Time allocation

Class

Individual teachers

Diversity and flexibility

 Design of the diversified lesson plans and related materials  Curriculum implementation

Although teachers can participate in different levels of curriculum development and given different tasks, the majority of teachers still work on the daily routines of level 1 rather than more critical thinking about curriculum design in level 2 and 3. Few active and creative teachers are interested in curriculum development (Tanner & Tanner, 1995). However, teachers who are working on the action front of curriculum implementation can give more practical experiences and evaluate the curriculum for further improvement of curriculum development. The curriculum could not be guaranteed to fulfil the needs of students. Besides, teachers of three levels need a good communication or teachers of class level cannot understand the curriculum development strategy and teachers of grade and school levels cannot know the difficulties of curriculum implementation. It would make the bad communication and cooperation between three levels. This study will present a practical model of SBCD and how to apply information and communication technology to support the works of curriculum development, so that teachers can easily participate and school can handle the quality of curricula.

A Development Model for SBCD – V-map Based on the above description of what role a teacher can play in three levels of curriculum development, the tasks of SBCD can be arranged to seven stages and form a V-map which vertex is stage 4 (see Fig. 1).

Figure 1. V-map a development model for SBCD

The tasks of each stage will be explained as below: Stage 1: Analysing overall structure and student’s prospect

612

Computer Support for School Based Curriculum Development According to local environment of school and student’s social background, the members of CSCD analyses appropriate prospect for student and the overall curriculum structure based on logicality of knowledge structure of each subject and continuity of student’s abilities. The adaptability of curriculum also should be considered such as the degree of learning materials. Stage 2: Designing syllabus and objectives According to prospect of students and overall curriculum structure analysed by the members of CSCD, the members of GCCD will design the syllabus with integrity and set curriculum objectives in this stage to create prototypical lesson plans for each grade. Stage 3: Designing details According to the prototypical lesson plans designed by the members of GCCD, the individual teachers or teacher groups will design the details of curriculum with diversity to meet the needs of cognitive development of students. The design may include lesson plans, modification of subject matters adopted, and assessment activities. Stage 4: Curriculum implementation To gain the realistic effect for students, curriculum should be implemented by teachers of involved subjects in classroom after the analysis and design of curriculum. Thus, the main tasks of this stage will be the practice of curriculum as coherent as the lesson plans designed in last stage. Teachers have to note down something worth to curriculum improvement and keep track of students’ learning achievement for further evaluation in next three stages. Stage 5: Evaluating curriculum diversity and implementation Teachers evaluate the diversity of curriculum (carried out in stage 3) or introspect the advantage and disadvantage of curriculum implementation (carried out in stage 4) for improvement of curriculum design in the future. Stage 6: Evaluating curriculum integrity The evaluation in this stage is focused on the integrity of curriculum carried out in stage 3. Furthermore, according to the evaluation in stage 5, the members of GCCD will discuss and evaluate whether the curriculum meets the syllabus and objectives, design in stage 2, or not. The development flow can be returned to stage 2 or 3 if it is not compatible to the criterion. Stage 7: Evaluating curriculum continuity, logicality, and adaptability The evaluation in this stage is focused on the continuity, logicality, and adaptability of overall curriculum carried out in stage 1. According to the situation of curriculum implementation in stage 4, the members of CSCD will evaluate whether the curriculum meets the student’s prospect, knowledge structure of each subject, and abilities of students. The development flow can be returned to stage 1 if it is not compatible to the criteria.

Computer Support for Curriculum Development The tasks of SBCD are complex and niggling, and involve the subject knowledge and professional knowledge. If there is no systematic management system to support these works, it would take a long time on meeting, discussion, document editing and integration, and communication. Thus, SBCD needs the support of information and communication technology and requires a web-based system to manage all of the tedious tasks. Leave the time for teacher to design the curriculum materials and methods of teaching. This study designed a web-based system to support SBCD based on the former system, Instructional Planning Assisted SyStem (IPASS, Liu & Juang, 2002) which URL is “http://eduplans.educities.edu.tw/”.

613

International Conference on Computers in Education 2004 Conceptually, the seven stages can be categorized into three parts. The first part is curriculum analysis and design which comprises stage 1 to 3. The second part is curriculum implementation which indicates the stage 4. The third part is curriculum evaluation which comprises stage 5 to 7. Each part has its own output and the each output is provided for next part of stages to develop curriculum more precisely and solidly. The operation concept diagram is showed as Fig. 2. The computer supporting system will be analysed and designed based on this concept.

Figure 2. The operation model for three parts of curriculum development

System Analysis The output of curriculum analysis and design is lesson plans which comprise the design of learning activities, instructional objectives setting, design of learning materials and assessment activities. The success of the lesson plans relies on the cooperation of all involved teachers among three levels. Since different levels have different concerns, this task will be divided and distributed to each level. School level takes charge of planning the themes of lessons and the curriculum structure according to the analysis of overall structure and student’s prospect. That is to provide a common goal of curriculum development for all grades. Grade level takes charge of designing the multidisplinary and integrated lessons, setting the instructional objectives, and allocating instruction time according to the themes of lessons and curriculum structure designed in school level. Class level takes charge of designing learning activities, learning materials, assessment activities, and something related to them according to integrated lessons and instructional objectives designed in grade level. That is the design of the details of lesson plans. Summarily, the system should provide design, management, and communication tools to manage the information and databases about learning materials, versions, designers, modifiers, and categorization. In curriculum implementation part, the output here is instruction nodes and student’s learning portfolios. Teachers use the lesson plan to teach and flexibly adjust for different learning scenarios or different learning needs of students. The change of curriculum, instructional effect, and student’s response should be notes down for reference of curriculum improvement. System will provide the online notebook while teachers take advantage of the system to teach. These records will be provided to the evaluation part for precise look on the advantages and disadvantages of the lesson plans. In curriculum evaluation part, each level has the its concern of evaluation, that is, the curriculum diversity and implementation are the emphasis of class level, the curriculum integrity is the emphasis of grade level, and the curriculum continuity, logicality, and adaptability are the emphasis of school level. Based on the outputs of previous stages, such as the lesson plans, instructional notes, and student’s learning portfolios, the evaluation results can be easily carried out. Thus, the system will provide the statistic tool, information query tool, and checklists for evaluation of lesson plans, teaching materials, and manpower.

614

Computer Support for School Based Curriculum Development

System Design The system is established based on the above analysis and the V-map curriculum development flow. It has three categories of supporting tools. The first part for curriculum analysis and design has the tools of design, management and communication, the second part for curriculum implementation has the tools of material browser, instructional note, and virtual classroom, and the third part for curriculum evaluation has the tools of query and statistic and checklist. The details will be described as the following subsections.

Tools for Curriculum Analysis and Design 1. Design tool. This tool provides various authoring functions for teachers who are working on different levels to design lesson plans. That is, a lesson plan can be completed collaboratively by using the authoring tools provided to the teachers in school, grade, and class levels. For school level, it provides the functions of the design of instructional theme and syllabus, instructional objectives setting, time allocation, and collaborative authoring for CSCD. For grade level, it provides the functions for creating prototypical lesson plans, such as the design of instructional themes with integrity, outline of learning activities, instructional objectives of involved subjects, learning sources, and collaborative authoring for GCCD. A prototypical lesson plan is a part of a lesson plan which only comprises the attributes related to preceding functions (see Fig. 3). For class level, the design tool provides functions to design detailed lesson plans, such as the template of lesson plan, search engine for the clauses of instructional objectives, instructional resources uploading, assessment items editing, and collaborative authoring for individual teachers or groups.

Figure 3. Prototypical lesson plan authoring

2. Management tool: The functions provided for school level are the manpower management and supervision of overall curriculum. Manpower management tool can be used to analyze the teachers’ specialty, seniority, and experience in order to allot appropriate works of curriculum

615

International Conference on Computers in Education 2004 development to appropriate teachers. The CSCD can use this tool to make a decision of the needs of various teachers for each grade. The supervision tool of overall curriculum can be used to gather the information of lesson plans to keep current state of curriculum development and further to give suggestions to teachers who are working on grade level or class level. In grade level and class level, it provides management functions of prototypical lesson plans such as modification, deletion, recombination, and publication. The recombination means a new lesson plan can be created by various learning activities of other lesson plans and then made some modification for the practical needs. This function gives the opportunities of sharing instructional innovations and resources. 3. Communication tool: Network (or Internet) has been an important communication media in the present age. Communication tool takes advantage of the features of Internet to provide the functions of asynchronous threaded discussion board, announcement board, and newsletter publisher and provider in school level and grade level. Asynchronous threaded discussion board is a message posting system like BBS (Bulletin Board System) to provide a virtual space for discussing problems or sharing experiences during curriculum development. The board is divides into several sub-boards for various subject and communities. Furthermore, every lesson plan has its own discussion board to facilitate interaction between the authors and users. The newsletter, which transmits current stage of curriculum development, educational news, good practices sharing, and so on, will be published periodically. The content of newsletters is provided by class level and grade level, and the publisher is taken charge by school level. Besides, the popular tools of instant message transmission and message box are also provided to teachers in class level. It will enhance the communication to be more frequent among the three levels.

Tools for Curriculum Implementation Curriculum implementation means to teach by following the steps designed in lesson plan. Thus, system provides two tools for class level, the material browser for presenting digital learning content and instructional notes for recording instructional situation in practice. Besides, to gather the learning portfolios of students, a virtual classroom is provided for students to have a learning space after class. 1. Material browser: The material browser presents a sequence of hyperlink to materials designed in lesson plan. Teachers just click on the hyperlink to launch the associated players and to show the content (see Fig. 4). Furthermore, students can upload the homework, if it can be done by computer, to the virtual classroom of the system. Then, teachers also can use the material browser to show the homework for students learning from each other. 2. Instructional note: The instructional note will be dynamically appeared in design tool and material browser for teacher noting down the experience or problems encountered during the stages of curriculum design and implementation (see Fig. 5). Each lesson plan just has one instructional note which can be read while this plan is browsed or recombined.

Figure 4. Materials browser

Figure 5. Instructional notes

3. Virtual classroom: The virtual classroom provides the functions of course offering and management for teachers, and the functions of e-Learning for students. A teacher can offer courses based on one or more lesson plan(s) and use the functions of materials citing, homework assignment, scoring, announcement board, query of student’s portfolios, and other management 616

Computer Support for School Based Curriculum Development functions. Student can take many courses and use the functions of material browse, discussion board, real-time chat room, instant message transmission, homework uploading, and so on (see Fig. 6). The students’ portfolios then can be gathered from the records logged in each functions so that it can be provided a reference for curriculum evaluation.

Figure 6. Virtual classroom (student interface)

Tools for Curriculum Evaluation The curriculum evaluation is a complex work but it can be reduced by using the tool of query and statistic to gather and compare the information of lesson plans and the tool of checklist to verify whether the lesson plan is conformed to the criteria of curriculum organization. The details of the two tools are described as below. 1. Query and statistic tool: The curriculum developers can retrieve information of lesson plans, instructional notes, and students’ learning portfolios by query the attributes of lesson plan such as the title, author, involved subject, instructional objective, keyword, cited material, and so on. Then, the system will compile statistics from three dimensions, the class, subject, and year, to present the result (see Fig. 7).

Figure 7. Query and statistic tool

2. Checklist: The quality of lesson plans is related to the effect of instruction and learning and impact on the success of SBCD. This task will leave to developers but system provides a checklist for users verifying lesson plan on the design stage. Besides, a peer review mechanism is offered to class level. Teachers can score lesson plans after review and exchange experience on them.

617

International Conference on Computers in Education 2004

Preliminary Evaluation The curriculum development model V-map and the system had experimented on an elementary school for one semester in Taiwan. There are 58 classes, 9 classes per grade in average, 30 to 35 students per class, and 110 teachers in this school. The target teachers joined this experiment have 24.7% of the members of Committee of School-based Curriculum Development. By the perspective of information technology ability, 98.7% of teachers have the skill of word processing such as MS Word, 68.8% of teachers have the skill of worksheet processing such as MS Excel, 80.5% of teachers have the skill of briefing editing such as MS PowerPoint, 89.6% of teachers have the skill of using WWW browser and E-mail system, and 53.2% of teachers have the skill of using graphic tool. It reveals that teachers have higher capability of information technology. Besides, 96.1% of teachers do not exclude the use of information and communication technology in instruction and computer support for SBCD. The experiment procedure is listed as following: Step 1: The CSCD members draw up the instructional themes and syllabus for each grade. Step 2: The GCCD members discuss the curriculum structure with integrity and design the prototypical lesson plans by design tool. Step 3: Teachers use design tool to design lesson plans, subject materials, and assessment items. Step 4: Teachers practice the lesson plans, by using the materials browser if needed, and record the instruction circumstance in instructional note for each lesson. Students can join the virtual classroom to access the lesson on web. Step 5: GCCD of each grade call meetings to discuss and evaluate the curriculum integrity through the review of lesson plans, instructional notes and students’ learning portfolios by using the query and statistic tool, then, gives the suggestion. Step 6: CSCD call a meeting to discuss and evaluate the continuity, locality, and adaptability of curriculum through evaluation tools, then, gives the suggestion. After the six steps of experiment, a preliminary result had been found. There are 380 lesson plans had been created and 205 plans were published, up to March 7th, 2004, for other teachers to access. Each teacher created four lesson plans in average. The questionnaire results are shown as table 2. There are more than 50% of users expressed positive responses (agree plus strongly agree) to the system tools. It reveals the V-map model and the system can effectively support for SBCD. Besides, some tools got high percentage of ‘No comment’ such as the instructional note and virtual classroom. The reason had been found after interviews with a part of teachers. Some teachers did not know how to use those tools or even they did not know the existence of those tools. It reveals the humancomputer interaction of system needs to be improved and the dissemination needs more promotions.

Table 2. Preliminary evaluation results of how helpful the provided tools support for SBCD

Tools Analysis and design design tool management tool communication tool Implementation material browser instructional note virtual classroom Evaluation query and statistic tool Checklist

618

Strongly disagree 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Disagree 1.4% 2.2% 1.1% 0.9% 3.4% 1.7% 8.6% 0.0% 1.1% 2.3% 0.0%

No comment 24.6% 13.8% 24.7% 35.3% 33.9% 15.5% 43.1% 43.1% 31.6% 28.7% 34.5%

Agree 55.8% 62.5% 55.7% 49.1% 50.6% 63.8% 41.4% 46.6% 51.4% 52.9% 50.0%

Strongly agree 18.1% 21.1% 18.4% 14.7% 10.9% 19.0% 6.9% 6.9% 15.8% 16.1% 15.5%

Computer Support for School Based Curriculum Development

Conclusion and Future Work School based curriculum development is one of the important issues of educational reform. Although the decentralized decision-making power gives autonomy of curriculum development for teachers, many complex and difficult tasks also makes them obtaining more challenges instead. Teachers involved in SBCD will encounter many problems, but computer perhaps play an assistant and give an opportunity to simplify the works of SBCD. This study presents a curriculum development model, Vmap, for teachers taking advantage of computer to assist the works of SBCD. The V-map model comprises seven stages which can be categorized into three activities for analysis and design of computer supported system. The system is established to provide various tools to support the three activities of curriculum development which are the curriculum analysis and design, implementation, and evaluation. This model and system had been initially experimented in an elementary school and acquired positive responses such as the unified format of lesson plan in design tool, instructional resources sharing in communication tool, competence indicators setting in design tool, cooperative lesson plan design in management tool, and so on. But there are some problems needs to be improved in the future. There are three suggestions concluded from the questionnaire and interview of the experiment school. First, the V-map model and how to use the provided system in which critical works of SBCD should be thoroughly introduced to every members of SBCD by holding a dedicated conference or workshop. Second, the school principle plays as an important role during curriculum development. That is, it should be the first task of successful SBCD to obtain the support and promotion from administrative staffs. Third, system reliability and Internet transmission speed are the key factors of whether the teachers are willing to use. So, the system should be improved by considering the factors to attract more teachers and contributions. In the future, there are some issues can be studied. First, the issue of knowledge management in educational organization has been arisen in recent years. The fundamental knowledge in a school should be the instructional knowledge which is hidden in every teacher’s mind. Lesson plans are exactly the knowledge externalized from teachers. So this study has just constructed a web-based framework for design lesson plans of SBCD where just can be treated as a knowledge management framework. By using the system, it may be a good opportunity to create a school that learns. Second, the diffusion model of innovations is also a potential research based on the framework of curriculum development. How to disseminate the innovations generated in lesson plans and the good practices or experiences implemented in SBCD to other teachers? This issue needs more experiments to be taken for comparative discussions. Third, to acquire practical effect from the V-map model and its supporting system, more experiments and long-term observation are needed. This model and system can be experimented in diverse schools with different scale, location, and feature to explore more different requirements.

Reference List Brady, L. (1995). School based curriculum development and the national curriculum: Can they coexist? Curriculum and Teaching, 10(1), pp. 47-54. Kennedy, K. J. (1992). School-based curriculum development as a policy option for the 1990s: An Australian perspective. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7(2), pp. 180-195. Knight, P. (1985). The practice of school-based curriculum development, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(1), pp. 37-48. Huang, Jen-Jei, (1999). Curriculum design (in Chinese), Taipei: Dong-Hua. Liu T. C. & Y. R. Juang. (2002). IPASS - Teacher’s Knowledge Management Platform For Teachers Professional Development, Proceeding of 2002 International Conference on Engineering Education, UK, 18 - 22, Aug. 2002. Lo, Yiu Chun, (1999). School-based curriculum development: the Hong Kong experience, The Curriculum Journal, 10(3), pp. 419-442. Marsh, C., Day, C., Hannay, L. and McCutcheon, G. (1990). Reconceptualizing School-based Curriculum Development, London: Falmer Press. McKenney S., Nieveen N., & van den Akker J. J. H. (2002). Computer support for curriculum developers: CASCADE, Journal of Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4); pp. 25-35. McMullen, I. (1973). School-based curriculum development. OECD/CERI mimeographed.

619

International Conference on Computers in Education 2004 Morris, P. (1990). Bureaucracy, professionalization and school centered innovation stategies. The International Review of Education, 36(1), pp. 21-41. OECD (1979). School-based curriculum development. Paris: OECD. Oliver, A. I. (1977). Curriculum improvement: a guide to problems, principles, and process (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Skilbeck, M. (1976). School-based curriculum development. In J. Walton & J. Welton (Eds.), Rational curriculum planning: Four case studies (pp. 154-166). London: Ward Lock Educational. Skilbeck, M. (1984). School-based Curriculum Development, London: Hodder & Stoughton. Tanner, Daniel & Laurel Tanner, (1995). Curriculum development: theory into practice, New York: Merrill, pp. 628-632. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

620